https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:08:19 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pnghttps://darrinpaul.wordpress.com
https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/96/
https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/96/#respondThu, 15 Nov 2012 18:19:56 +0000http://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/?p=96When constructing an FAQ page for a website or other online service, simplicity and user-friendliness are the key. One shouldn’t have to scroll up and down a page searching for a question. On the other hand, forcing one to use the “search” option on the FAQ page when the question is seemingly common and/or simple is also something an aspiring FAQ builder should avoid.

The FAQ section for Netflix seems to be the perfect combination of simplicity and usefulness. You’ll notice that the page offers all of (what I assume to be) the most frequently asked questions about the service, but avoids revealing the answers unless a specific question is clicked on. This helps keep the page clean and avoid anything that might be confusing to a casual user (probably the type of person most likely to visit the FAQs). Packt Publishing offers a similarly well-designed FAQ page.

An FAQ model to avoid is the design used by Square Enix Holdings. The page is messy, with a list of dozens of questions organized by topic. Also, you’ll notice that the table of contents for the site appears at the top of the page, but scrolling down reveals the same sections along with the lists of questions. A more helpful approach might be to include the table of contents on one page and a separate list for each section.

Advertisements

]]>https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/96/feed/0darrinp44Antipoverty Programs Work- Just Not Well Enoughhttps://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/antipoverty-programs-work-just-not-well-enough/
https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/antipoverty-programs-work-just-not-well-enough/#respondThu, 15 Nov 2012 17:13:23 +0000http://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/?p=93Yesterday (11/14) the US Census Bureau released a report that aims to show, among other things, the effects of regional factors on poverty levels as well the impact that government aid has on specific populations. The report, dubbed the “Supplemental Measure on Poverty Statistics”, found that when accounting for things such as taxes, housing, transportation, and healthcare costs, as well as access to government assistance, the national poverty rate is actually 16.1%, rather than the 15% calculated in the Bureau’s conventional poverty report. One key finding in the report: state and federal anti-poverty programs significantly reduce poverty among some populations. From Ben Casselman’s report in The Wall Street Journal:

Under the official definition … there are 16.5 million children under 18 living in poverty, for a poverty rate of 22.3%. But because many government antipoverty programs target children, the alternative definition yields a lower rate of 18.1%, a difference of more than 3 million people.

This would indicate then, that programs like SNAP (food stamps), CHIP (children’s health insurance), and TANF (welfare) are keeping over 3 million children out of poverty. Unfortunately, the new metrics also show that 3.5 million more people are living in poverty when compared with the conventional statistics. Much of this difference can be accounted for by looking at where people live. According to Casselman’s reporting, Mississippi (which has the highest conventional poverty rate) shows a substantial reduction in poverty under the new measurements, while New York’s is noticeably higher. This would seem to indicate that differences in housing costs are a big factor in the disparities in state by state poverty rates.

While the new report makes plain that anti-poverty programs are making a drastic difference in keeping the nation’s most vulnerable out of poverty, it also suggests that aid can be targeted and delivered more efficiently. States with higher costs of living and more depressed job markets should receive a larger share of federal aid, while states with lower incomes but also lower costs of living should get less.

Advertisements

]]>https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/antipoverty-programs-work-just-not-well-enough/feed/0darrinp44Report: Austerity an experiment not worth repeatinghttps://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/report-austerity-an-experiment-not-worth-repeating/
https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/report-austerity-an-experiment-not-worth-repeating/#respondThu, 08 Nov 2012 16:21:50 +0000http://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/?p=89Last week’s report in the Daily Telegraph gives us a clearer picture of the damaging effects of austerity on economies and budgets throughout Europe, and may serve as a harbinger of things to come in the US. Fortunately, Tuesday’s presidential election may have saved the nation from the draconian budget measures promoted by Mitt Romney and the Republicans, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have plenty to learn from Europe’s mistakes. As Szu Ping Chan writes of a report issued by Britain’s National Institute for Economic and Social Research:

The respected think-tank said that Britain’s debt to gross domestic product (GDP) ratio will be 4.85 percentage points higher by 2013 because of the spending cuts… introduced by the Coalition government. The think-tank said that while in “normal” economic times, fiscal consolidation would lead to a fall in Britain’s debt pile, central banks were already at the limit of what they could do to offset the impact of cuts through loose monetary policy and quantitative easing.

Few in the US are arguing that big deficits are not a problem in the long term, but the plans championed by Romney and House Republicans, most notably Romney’s running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (WI), would likely disrupt our fragile (although strengthening) economic recovery. As we’ve seen happen in Greece, Ireland, Italy, and Great Britain, big cuts to domestic spending by the government inhibits short term economic growth, reduces employment, and drives down revenues. Much like Europe’s central banks, the Federal Reserve has and continues to do all it can to promote growth through low interest rates, meaning that if huge federal spending cuts are imposed here, there will be nothing to fall back on to keep the nation out of recession. More from Chan’s report:

“Not only would growth have been higher if such policies had not been pursued, but debt-to-GDP ratios would have been lower,” said Niesr economists Jonathan Portes and Dawn Holland… In Greece, where cumulative spending cuts and tax increases from 2011 to 2013 will amount to around 10pc of GDP, austerity will increase the country’s debt burden by 32.4 percentage points, according to the Niesr… The IMF also said that efforts to slash deficits and debt may have actually hurt growth because they were too widespread and had been implemented too quickly.

Let me reiterate that: cutting the budget actually increased deficits throughout the EU. If America is going to tackle it’s long term debt and deficit problems, it will require a balanced approach implemented over the long term. No doubt there is wasteful spending to be found and cut out of popular domestic programs like the Departments of Education, Health and Human Servces, Housing and Urban Development, or the Environment Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, NASA, food stamps, or unemployment benefits, but gutting domestic discretionary spending (which is less than 1/5 of the federal budget) in a way that Republicans have proposed would be a disaster. Not only would it deprive future generations of the benefits of these services and research, but we would likely bring the country back into recession all while INCREASING deficits and the debt. The budget must be balanced by making structural changes to entitlement programs (again, over the long term), military spending, and even… wait for it… tax increases. We’ve got to learn from the mistakes made across the Atlantic and avoid austerity at all costs.

Advertisements

]]>https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/report-austerity-an-experiment-not-worth-repeating/feed/0darrinp44Scooter Libby, Santa, and Linkinghttps://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/scooter-libby-santa-and-linking/
https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/scooter-libby-santa-and-linking/#respondThu, 01 Nov 2012 17:56:13 +0000http://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/?p=83Whether you’re in retail, journalism, blogging, or an aspiring children’s folktale character, Jeff Jarvis has great advice: “Cover what you do best. Link to the rest.” Writing on his blog, BuzzMachine.com, Jarvis says that the media’s traditional institutions (newspapers, TV news, etc.) must focus their resources on creating unique content that only they can offer, rather than duplicating the work that other organizations have already done. This duplication, Jarvis says, “… is clearly inefficient and unnecessary. You can link to the stories that someone else did and to the rest of the world. And if you do that, it allows you to reallocate your dwindling resources to what matters… Instead of saying, “we should have that” (and replicating what is already out there) you say, “what do we do best?” That is, “what is our unique value?” It means that when you sit down to see a story that others have worked on, you should ask, “can we do it better?” If not, then link. And devote your time to what you can do better.”

Jarvis cites some examples of missed opportunities for news organizations. Firedoglake made itself the best source for coverage of the Scooter Libby Trial (all the way in 2007), and rather linking straight to it on their sites, editors at other organizations instead used Firedoglake’s information to produce duplicate reports. This was, according to Jarvis, a waste of resources on the part of the other organizations and may have deprived their readers of the chance to view better, more up to date content.

Jarvis also mentions the NYT’s coverage of Anna Nichole Smith’s death. Rather than allow other (read: crappier) outlets to report on the story, link to those outlets, and reallocate the resources to covering, say the war in Afghanistan, the Times tried to be a major contributor. Of this Jarvis says, “They added nothing more to the story. It’s not what they do best. At the least, if they felt they really needed to cover it, they should have used the AP. Online, they certainly should have just linked to the many, many other sources that are covering it.”

Blogger Jay Rosen has similar advice for bloggers and linkers. He advocates picking a niche and owning it. Be the best at your niche and always give more. More links, more commentary, whatever. But focus on surpassing your reader’s expectations.

So where do retail and children’s folktales come into play? What Jarvis is advocating isn’t much different from what Santa Clause got Macy’s to do in the 1947 film “Miracle on 34th Street”. In this clip, you can see Santa telling the parents of the children who have waited in line to see him where they can find the toys the children have asked for, even when Macy’s doesn’t carry them. Initially, this upsets his supervisors, but soon Mr. Macy realizes (in this clip) that placing customer service ahead of profits will, of course, “lead to more profits”.

Advertisements

]]>https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/scooter-libby-santa-and-linking/feed/0darrinp44Decisions, Decisionshttps://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/decisions-decisions/
https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/decisions-decisions/#respondTue, 23 Oct 2012 16:38:43 +0000http://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/?p=77The election is just two weeks away, and for those few of you undecided voters out there (glad to see you made it out of the cave you’ve been living in for the past year), I’ve tried to summarize each of the gubernatorial candidate’s positions on the issue this blog is most concerned with. A quick search of the campaign websites for Indiana’s gubernatorial candidates would seem to indicate that our state doesn’t have a poverty problem- this in spite of the dismal statistics I put up in last week’s post. Upon further inspection of the candidate’s sites I was able to find a few brief mentions of poverty, although with none of the urgency that the issue deserves.

The GOP

The issues section of Mike Pence’s site goes so far as to mention the fact that 20% of children in Indiana live below the poverty line (perhaps a concession that his party has failed to address the issue during the past eight years). Sadly, his proposals to do anything about poverty fall far short of the problem, and more often than not he miss the mark completely. Pence’s focus seems to be on “the family” (at least his notion of family). Citing research conducted by a right-wing think tank, Pence concludes that the best way to help poor children in Indiana is to promote two parent families (as well as adoption), principally through the tax code. He identifies certain state and federal tax provisions (namely, the “marriage tax”) and proposes revising the tax code to make it more “pro-family”. This isn’t a bad idea, but I don’t know of any parents who considered their future tax liabilities when conceiving a child. Any relief that can be offered to our state’s struggling families would be welcomed by this blogger, but Pence’s plan is a drop in the ocean. His site makes no mention of what can be done to help single parents, even though they represent the overwhelming majority of poor families in Indiana. Pence also proposes streamlining state services like the Department of Child Services and juvenile and family courts to allow for better communication and case management. Again, this would be a step in the right direction, but it’s not likely to have a meaningful impact for many of the state’s poorest. Even more disturbing is Pence’s discriminatory definition of what and who constitutes a family. He opposes same sex marriage, civil unions, and allowing gay couples to adopt. He’s also consistently opposed family planning programs that have gone a long way towards reducing the number of children born into poverty.

The Democrats

The issue of poverty as a stand alone issue is noticeably absent from John Gregg’s campaign site– a big disappointment to this blogger. When compared with Pence’s site, Gregg’s is sorely lacking in specific proposals. That said, the few details he does offer could go a long way to reducing poverty in Indiana. While the campaign websites and rhetoric of both candidates name job creation as the central issue facing our state (a fair assessment given the state’s 8.2% unemployment rate), Gregg’s plan is the most likely to create meaningful and sustained job growth in Indiana. Investing in infrastructure through direct public investment as well as through public/private partnerships will have an immediate impact on unemployment, particularly for low-skilled workers. Gregg also proposes all-day kindergarten, a tax credit to pay for child care, reinstating preventive mental health services for at-risk youth, and equal pay for women. The site also points out (accurately I might add- fact-check right here) that the Department of Child Services has returned $300 million worth of unspent funds back to the state. Gregg says he will use that unspent money to help improve the lives of our state’s most vulnerable youth, rather than use it on another tax cut. Gregg is pro-choice and has promised to protect funding to family planning services; when it comes to an inclusive vision of who is a family (and therefore who can adopt or take advantage of tax breaks meant for families), Gregg’s view is just as out-dated as that of Mike Pence.

The Verdict

Mike Pence gets the better grade for optics; he at least mentions poverty as an issue facing the state and puts forth specific policy solutions. Unfortunately his proposals will do very little for Indiana’s most vulnerable, and some of his ideas (increasing the use of school vouchers and cuts to other social services, to name a few) would do more harm than good. While a specific policy agenda to combat poverty is sorely lacking from John Gregg’s site, the few details offered are a step in the right direction. The proposals mentioned above represent incremental, but meaningful steps to offer immediate relief to many in the short term. Gregg needs to build on these proposals by offering a big, long-term plan for reducing poverty. As is often the case, the Democrat in the race represents the lesser of two evils. Therefore, Indiana voters who view poverty as a serious issue in our state should support John Gregg for governor.

Advertisements

]]>https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/decisions-decisions/feed/0darrinp441 in 4https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/1-in-4/
https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/1-in-4/#commentsTue, 16 Oct 2012 16:31:09 +0000http://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/?p=72Writing for Harvard Law School’s The Record, Sean Hamidi says that the presidential debates and campaigns have almost completely ignored the issue of poverty:

One in four black Americans is living in poverty. One in four Hispanic Americans is living in poverty. These numbers should be burnt into our collective conscience until we muster the political courage to do something about it. How many presidents? 44. How many states? 50. How many black and Hispanic Americans are living in poverty? One in four.

Hamidi goes on to argue that talking about the poor isn’t likely to give anybody a bump in the polls, so Romney and Obama have virtually ignored what ought to be a source of national shame. Because the issue of poverty in our country is so far-reaching and complex, it’s not likely that a blog managed by one person could give it the attention it deserves; rather than focus on poverty at the national level, I’ve decided to focus solely on poverty in Indiana. This blog will try to explore the major causes and some solutions of poverty in Indiana. For today’s introductory post, here are a few numbers to stew about:

426,000 children in Indiana are living in poverty

236,000 families in Indiana are living in poverty

over 1 million people in total in Indiana are living in poverty

Source: Source: STATS Indiana, using U.S. Census Bureau data

All numbers are as of 2009.

Advertisements

]]>https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/1-in-4/feed/1darrinp44Center for American Progress: Unions=Stimulushttps://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/center-for-american-progress-unionsstimulus/
https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/center-for-american-progress-unionsstimulus/#respondTue, 02 Oct 2012 16:04:41 +0000http://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/?p=67I saw this post a few weeks ago and thought it was worth revisiting. Writing for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, David Madland and Nick Bunker explain how an increase in union membership would create a ripple effect throughout the economy, benefiting middle and working class households regardless of their union affiliation:

…a 10 percentage point increase in union membership would translate into an extra $1,479 per year for the average middle-class household, whether or not that household includes union members—about the same effect as boosting college graduation rates by the same margin.

During the past couple of weeks, much of the talk within the presidential campaigns has centered on the increasing number of people receiving government assistance such as food stamps, unemployment benefits, or welfare payments. It’s been widely reported recently that something like 23 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed and almost 47 million are receiving food stamps. While Mitt Romney says it’s not his job “to worry about those people”, and President Obama’s most oft-touted fix is more stimulus (something I support, by the way), perhaps the simplest solution would be to get out of the way of the biggest proponent of workers: labor unions. As more and more states (most recently Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana, while Michigan may be next) pass laws to limit the abilities of workers to organize and weaken the power of unions (most notably, so called “right to work” legislation), elected officials in those states are effectively undermining the earning potential of their constituents.

As Madland and Bunker point out, since the 1970s union membership nationwide has been falling steadily in correlation with a decrease in real wages for middle income earners. Unions not only advocate for their own members, but also work to advance the cause of all workers through the political process. Again, from Bunker and Madland:

… unions are champions of economic programs that create a strong, robust, and expanding middle class. Unions pushed for and have defended Social Security, the minimum wage, and more recently the Affordable Care Act.

The last few weeks of the presidential and congressional campaigns is sure to be another silly season, with politicians on both sides busting out their favorite whipping boys. For conservatives, demonizing labor unions is a favorite past-time (third favorite actually, just behind “job killing Obamacare” and “job killing taxes”). They’ll claim that unions want special privileges and that any time one union gains concessions for its members, it counts as a loss for everyone else. But benefits for workers are not a zero-sum game; concessions gained by one union will benefit all workers, regardless of their union status. And efforts to limit organizing have and will undoubtedly continue to put a ceiling on the aspirations of millions of working families. As JFK (and later, Ronald Reagan) said in regards to shared economic prosperity, “a rising tide lifts all boats”. I couldn’t agree more, and there exists no stronger or more reliable economic tide than strong labor unions.

Advertisements

]]>https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/center-for-american-progress-unionsstimulus/feed/0darrinp44For access to all of this content and morehttps://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/for-access-to-all-of-this-content-and-more/
https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/for-access-to-all-of-this-content-and-more/#respondTue, 25 Sep 2012 15:33:47 +0000http://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/?p=64check out my my storify page.

]]>https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/this-aint-borats-kazakhstan/feed/0darrinp44Rep. Wilson: Protect Our Jobshttps://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/rep-wilson-protect-our-jobs/
https://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/rep-wilson-protect-our-jobs/#respondTue, 25 Sep 2012 15:29:52 +0000http://darrinpaul.wordpress.com/?p=59An op-ed by Michigan lawmaker Rep. Woodrow Stanley implores Michigan voters to support the Protect Our Jobs Initiative on the ballot this November and outlines how Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and state Republicans have been rolling back benefits for the state’s most vulnerable while pursuing an anti-worker agenda, pro-big business agenda.